Theo Hobson writes in the Guardian about A carnival of Christianity
The dominant trend of contemporary Christian theology might be called ecclesiastical fundamentalism. The one thing that everyone seems to agree on is the conceptual primacy of “church”. Postmodern theology explains that this religion is not an abstract system but a set of actual practices, performed (a crucial word) by various churches. Such is the current theological orthodoxy.
This evades the crisis at the heart of “church”. All forms of church define a Christian as one who belongs to this special society. In practice, that means accepting the authority of a particular institution. An institution must have rules; it must promote an orthodoxy and exclude people who want to think or behave differently. The problem is that Christianity is about a vision of total peace, of universal brother- and sisterhood. It is meant to oppose authoritarianism, legalism and exclusion. Was not the kingdom of God announced by Jesus betrayed by authoritarian institutions?…
Christopher Howse writes in the Telegraph about Pottering round old churches
Jonathan Sacks writes in The Times on the London bombings, Terrorism dishonours any cause which it claims to represent
Johann Hari wrote this, originally in the Independent but now available on his blog, The attacks on London – and the battles to come
The concept (and indeed the reality) of church necessarily rests on various more basic realities, e.g. the Holy Spirit & salvation, which in turn presuppose atonement, which in turn presupposes Christ, which in turn presupposes God.
“Let Britain’s Christians stop waiting for the Church to do something fresh. Easter Day 2006 will take place in Hyde Park – you heard it here first – where there will be drumming, dancing, parades.” Theo Hobson’s piece is very interesting, but still doesn’t go deep enough. What he’s calling for sounds a lot like the “Christian Woodstocks” that we have here on the west side of The Pond. Oh, there’s drumming and dancing, alright . . . but scratch the surface, and it’s the same ‘ol/same ‘ol underneath: “Everybody must buy into Brandname-Jesus God, or Go to Hell!” Far… Read more »
Theo Hobson wrote: “….This evades the crisis at the heart of “church”. All forms of church define a Christian as one who belongs to this special society. In practice, that means accepting the authority of a particular institution. An institution must have rules; it must promote an orthodoxy and exclude people who want to think or behave differently. The problem is that Christianity is about a vision of total peace, of universal brother- and sisterhood.” No it is not !! Theo Hobson is making the common liberal mistake of projecting his (I assume) assumptions onto christianity. Hasn’t he read what… Read more »
I think peace and universal brotherhood are a good deal mnore valuable than inaccurate and misleading conservative proof-texting.
Its hard to see the bigger picture when you can’t see the message for the superstitious supernaturalism.
Mike, I’m not inaccurate or misleading in my interpretation of Scripture. And I don’t think it behoves someone who claims to represent IC to write off Scripture and 2000 years ot Christian tradition as “superstitious supernaturalism”.
Is that all the respect you can muster; or couldn’t you care less ?
Oh come on, Dave: everyone who ISN’T a Fundy knows that the “ink is still wet” on Matt. 28:18-20 (Disciples of “all nations”? Baptism in the Trinitarian Formula? Give me a break! Jesus of Nazareth didn’t *say* it: the Early Church stuck it in his mouth!). That said, I can still joyfully affirm it . . . but NOT in a “make the heathen quit being heathen, and Buy into Brandname-Jesus God” kind of way (that being the type of Anglicanism—so-called—which has done so much damage in the Global South). (And the “sword” of Matt. 10: 34 is a *metaphor*,… Read more »
So J. C. Fisher and Merseymike think that ‘supernaturalism’ (presumably belief in the miracles of the Gospel, the Incarnation and the Resurrection?) is superstitious. You are of course entitled to your unbelief, but since these are integral elements of the Anglican Christian faith (and the foundations for the dogmatic affirmations we make about Jesus of Nazareth) which you cannot accept, why do you bother with this church? An adult who beleived as little as you wouldn’t be accepted for baptism. I really do think you are much better suited for the MCC.
Why do I “bother”? Because “this church” is MY church—my place in the Body of Christ: God, do I love it! (Sorry to disappoint, Martin! And as far as “integral elements” go, that’s integral to *you*. It’s your fundamentalist propositions that I hold as superstition, not your—or anyone’s—faith in Christ) When people ask me about my faith, I tell them. Feel free to believe it or not (or even diss it as “unbelief”) . . . but I don’t have to justify it to you (my justification comes *solely* through Christ). [OK, OK: if *my bishop* calls me on the… Read more »
Woo ! Preach it, JCF !
One of the primary reasons I’m an Episcopalian is that I *don’t* have to justify my faith or belief to Martin, Dave, Christopher or any, other human. It’s between God and me. Period.
If I WANTED a confessional church, there’re plenty to choose from here in the Buckle of the Bible Belt (Texas)… but I DON’T.